Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 - Section 61 - Condonation of Delay - Refiling of Appeal - Mandatory requirement of certified copy - Respondent filed appeal on last day of condonable period without certified copy and without applying for one - Refiled after 150 days without curing the defect - Respondent applied for certified copy only months after refiling - Held - Filing an appeal without applying for a certified copy before the limitation period runs out means there was no filing in the eyes of law - A diligent litigant is expected to apply for the copy before the period expires to seek exclusion of time - The appeal was not merely defective but wholly incompetent - NCLAT order condoning delay set aside - [Paras 1-11]

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules 2016 - Rules 14 and 22 - Presentation of Appeals - Curing of defects - Rule 22(2) mandates every appeal be accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned order - Rule 14 enabling exemption does not confer an automatic right to dispense with compliance - Filing an application for a certified copy is an indication of diligence in pursuing litigation - Held - Refiling an appeal without the certified copy or an exemption application is incurably tainted - NCLAT failed to ascertain if the appeal was instituted in accordance with norms before extending indulgence - [Paras 6-10]

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules 2016 - Rule 26 - Curing of defects - Time limit for refiling - Rule 26(2) stipulates 7 days for curing defects - Respondent refiled after 150 days - Held - Even after refiling the appeal remained defective beyond redemption as the certified copy of the NCLT order sought to be impugned was not filed - [Paras 3-6]

Decision: Appeals allowed – Order dated 10.11.2025 passed by the NCLAT set aside – Respondent's appeal rejected as incurably tainted at the threshold.

Contempt of Courts Act 1971 - Section 2(c)(i) - Criminal Contempt - Scandalizing the Court - Appellant-Senior Advocate made scurrilous allegations against the High Court Registry and called the institution a gambling den in a televised press conference - Held - Such statements lower the authority of the Court and tarnish the credibility of the justice delivery system - Registry and Judicial wings are inseparable components of the Court - High Court’s finding of guilt affirmed - [Paras 1-9, 45-49]

Contempt of Courts Act 1971 - Section 12 - Apology - Sincerity and Remorse - Appellant offered unconditional apologies after initially challenging the contempt notice - High Court rejected the apology as a paper apology citing past conduct - Held - The discretion to accept or reject an apology under Article 215 lies with the High Court - However - SC observed that justice must be tempered with mercy especially considering the emotional strain of the COVID-19 pandemic on Bar leaders - [Paras 38-40, 50-52]

Constitution of India - Article 142 - Plenary Powers - Suspension of Conviction and Sentence - Reformative Justice - Appellant had a history of contemptuous conduct but expressed profuse remorse - Held - To afford one last opportunity for reform - SC directed that the conviction and sentence shall remain suspended and kept in abeyance indefinitely - No consequential disqualification under Section 24-A of the Advocates Act 1961 shall attract during this period - [Paras 51-55, 65]

Constitution of India - Article 142 - Periodic Review - Monitoring of Conduct - Held - The Full Court of the High Court shall undertake a periodic review of the Appellant’s conduct every two years - If any further act of contempt is committed - the High Court is at liberty to move the SC to give immediate effect to the conviction and sentence - [Paras 52, 65]

High Court of Gujarat Designation of Senior Advocate Rules 2018 - Rule 26 - Senior Designation - Recalling of Gown - Distinctness of Proceedings - Held - Proceedings for recalling senior designation and punishment for criminal contempt are distinct and can run parallel - High Court requested to take a fresh independent decision regarding the subsequent 2024 incident involving alleged forum shopping - [Paras 33-35, 56-61]

Decision: Appeal disposed of – Conviction and sentence kept in abeyance indefinitely under Article 142 – Appellant’s conduct to be monitored by High Court with periodic reviews every two years.

Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, Section 12C - Election Petition - Functus Officio - Prescribed Authority (SDO) passed an order dated 05.11.2022 which allowed the election petition and directed a recount of votes for the post of Gram Pradhan. Upon recounting, the appellant was declared the winner. Held, once the Prescribed Authority passes an order granting final relief, it ceases to have jurisdiction to pass any further order in relation to the election as it becomes functus officio; the subsequent order dated 17.03.2023 declaring the appellant elected was void as the authority was no longer seised of the petition. [Paras 12-16, 21].

Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, Section 12C - Election Petition - Final Order vs. Interim Order - Distinction between orders merely directing recount and those allowing the petition - Distinguished from Raj Kumari v. Asha Devi where the recount order was held interim. In the present case, the SDO’s order dated 05.11.2022 expressly stated that the petition was "allowed" and the defendant’s statement was "rejected". Held, such an order is final in nature, leaving no scope for subsequent orders after recounting; the authority effectively lost jurisdiction to declare fresh results. [Paras 17-20].

Constitution of India, Article 243-O - Bar to interference in electoral matters - Panchayat Elections - Challenge to election through petition - Held, once an election petition is finally decided by the designated authority, the authority cannot reopen or continue proceedings as the power to set aside results vests exclusively with the Prescribed Authority only until it becomes functus officio. [Paras 6.2, 8].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s order setting aside the recounting and the subsequent election result affirmed – Prescribed Authority directed to remain cautious in future election matters.

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) - Atrocities - Place within public view - Essential ingredients - Appellants were charged for hurling casteist slurs inside a residential house - Held, the requirement that the incident must occur in "a place within public view" is a sine qua non for constituting offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s). Even if a private place is involved, it must be within public gaze or accessible to the public eye. An incident occurring within the four walls of a residential house where no independent members of the public are present does not satisfy this requirement. General allegations of past conduct without specific instances are insufficient to frame charges. [Paras 5-6.7, 9.1].

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 503 and 506 - Criminal Intimidation - Intent to cause alarm - Requirement of - Appellants allegedly threatened to implicate the complainant in a false molestation case - Held, the "intent to cause alarm" is the pivotal consideration for the offence of criminal intimidation. Where the record suggests the element of alarm was absent and the charges were merely conjunct with unsustainable SC/ST Act allegations, the proceedings amount to an abuse of process and harassment. [Paras 10-10.1, 11].

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 34 - Common Intention - Framing of charge - Held, where facts and attendant circumstances do not suggest a common intention to commit a criminal act in furtherance of a shared design, the framing of a charge under Section 34 IPC is legally unsustainable. [Para 10.2].

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 482 - Quashing of Charges - Failure to disclose ingredients - Held, as per the ratio in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, if the contents of the FIR, taken at face value, do not disclose the necessary ingredients of the alleged offences, the FIR and subsequent charges are liable to be quashed. Since the "public view" requirement of the SC/ST Act and the "alarm" requirement of Section 506 IPC were missing, the charges were wrongly framed. [Paras 8-9, 11-13].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of the High Court and orders of the trial court framing charges are set aside – FIR No. 42 of 2021 and the resulting charge-sheet are quashed.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - Murder - Oral Dying Declaration - Reliability - Deceased disclosed the name of the assailant (Appellant) to his brother (PW-1) at the scene and during transit to the hospital - Held, a truthful and voluntary dying declaration, if found reliable, can by itself form the sole basis of conviction without the necessity of corroboration. The omission of the assailant's name in medical history recorded by a doctor is insignificant as such history is primarily for clinical purposes. [Paras 13.3-14].

Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 134 - Evidence - Solitary Eyewitness - Quality vs. Quantity - Testimony of rickshaw driver (PW-12) - Held, the Indian legal system does not insist on plurality of witnesses. It is the quality and not the quantity of evidence that is determinative. Conviction can be founded on the testimony of a solitary witness if found wholly reliable and of sterling quality. [Paras 15-16].

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - Motive and Mens Rea - Previous Altercation - Dispute over throwing a cigarette into a wash bucket followed by a threat - Held, the proximity of time between the quarrel (10:30 p.m.) and the occurrence (next morning), coupled with the prior threat, clearly establishes the motive and requisite intention. [Para 12].

Criminal Jurisprudence - Hostile Witnesses - Appreciation of Evidence - Most panch and material witnesses turned hostile - Held, hostility of some witnesses does not vitiate the prosecution case if other witnesses (PW-1 and PW-12) consistently establish the overt act and essential ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. [Paras 13.1-13.5, 16].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order of conviction and sentence affirmed – Liberty granted to the appellant to move an appropriate application for remission in accordance with extant policy given the substantial period of sentence already undergone.

Civil Law - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order VII Rule 11 - Rejection of Plaint - Clever Drafting - Duty of the Court - Held, while considering an application for rejection of plaint, the Court must not be confined to a formal or superficial reading but must undertake a meaningful and substantive examination of the averments. Clever drafting cannot be permitted to create an illusion of a cause of action to veil a legal bar. If the suit is manifestly vexatious, meritless, or barred by law, it must be nipped in the bud. [Paras 8-10.7].

Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, Sections 3, 4 and 2(9) - Benami Transactions - Retrospective Operation of 2016 Amendment - Held, the 2016 amendments, insofar as they are declaratory, procedural, and machinery-oriented, operate retrospectively. Procedural provisions intended to make the Act workable apply to earlier transactions. The Court is duty-bound to pierce the veil of form to ascertain the real nature of the transaction. [Paras 12-22.15].

Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, Section 2(9)(A)(ii) - Fiduciary Capacity - Scope of Exception - Held, the expression fiduciary capacity must receive a restricted construction. An ordinary employer-employee relationship or a commercial contractual arrangement supported by consideration does not constitute a fiduciary relationship for the purpose of statutory exemption. [Paras 23-24.8].

Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Section 25 - Disqualification of Murderer - Intestate and Testamentary Succession - Held, the bar under Section 25, founded on public policy that no person can profit from their own wrong (nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria), applies equally to both intestate and testamentary succession. A person accused of murdering the testator is disentitled from asserting rights under a Will, and such an issue can be decided as a preliminary point in civil proceedings based on preponderance of probabilities. [Paras 25-25.13].

Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 23 - Unlawful Object - Circumvention of Statute - Held, any contract or MOU entered into for the purpose of defeating the provisions of a law, such as the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, is founded on an unlawful object and is void. No rights can arise from such illegal arrangements. [Paras 26-26.3].

Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, Sections 5 and 27 - Confiscation - Consequences of Judicial Determination - Held, once a transaction is declared benami in judicial proceedings and attains finality, the property is liable to confiscation by the Central Government. The Adjudicating Authority need not follow the standard procedure under Sections 24 to 26 if a competent court has already made a final determination on the benami nature of the transaction. [Paras 28-31].

Decision: Appeal allowed - Judgment of the High Court set aside - Plaint in O.S. No. 246 of 2020 rejected - Central Government directed to appoint an Administrator to take over the suit properties within eight weeks - No order as to costs.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 34 - Common Intention - Vicarious Liability - Prior Concert - Appellant was convicted for murder with the aid of Section 34 IPC - Evidence suggested Appellant arrived at the spot from a different direction after the commencement of the incident and after the fatal shot was fired - Held, Section 34 requires proof of a pre-arranged plan or prior meeting of minds, even if formed on the spur of the moment; mere presence at the scene without proof of active participation, facilitation, or shared intent to commit murder is insufficient for conviction; vicarious liability cannot be attracted in the absence of discernible material showing prior concert. [Paras 14-25].

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302 and 307 - Murder vs Attempt to Murder - Alteration of Offence - Appellant was present armed with a firearm - Testimony of injured witness (PW-6) revealed that he intervened and lifted the barrel of the Appellant's gun, directing it upwards - Held, while common intention for murder was not established, the Appellant's presence with a weapon and awareness of the serious nature of the incident justifies conviction under Section 307 IPC; where intention to cause death is not established but the act is done with knowledge of likely consequences, the offence falls under Section 307 IPC; conviction altered from Section 302/34 to Section 307. [Paras 26-28].

Sentence - Period undergone - Appellant already incarcerated for approximately 9 years and 9 months - Held, given the passage of time since the 1999 incident and the nature of the altered offence, the ends of justice are met by limiting the sentence to the period already undergone. [Para 29].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC set aside – Appellant convicted under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to the period already undergone – Appellant not required to surrender.

Civil Law - Electricity Act, 2003, Sections 2(17), 2(19) and 14 - Deemed Distribution Licensee (DDL) - Distribution vs. Self-Consumption - Appellant claimed DDL status under the third proviso to Section 14 based on Section 11 of the Railways Act - Held, a distribution licensee must mandatorily fulfill twin requirements: operating a distribution system and supplying electricity to consumers in its area of supply. Railways’ internal network for traction and signaling is a closed system for self-consumption and does not involve supply to third-party consumers for consideration. Conveyance of electricity within an internal network does not constitute "distribution". [Paras 15-37].

Electricity Act, 2003, Section 2(5) and 14 - Appropriate Government - Deemed status - Functional Test - Appellant contended it qualifies as "Appropriate Government" and thus automatically a DDL - Held, while Railways is an arm of the Central Government, mere classification as "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution or being an "Appropriate Government" under Section 2(5) does not dispense with the functional requirements of a distribution licensee. Deemed status requires the entity to actually perform distribution functions, similar to the Military Engineering Services (MES). [Paras 38-50].

Railways Act, 1989, Section 11 - Electricity Act, 2003, Section 173 - Non-obstante clause - Overriding effect - Appellant argued Section 11 of the Railways Act provides absolute authority to distribute electricity - Held, a non-obstante clause operates only in case of irreconcilable inconsistency. There is no conflict between the Railways Act (operational powers) and the Electricity Act (licensing framework); they must be read harmoniously. Section 11 does not grant blanket immunity from the regulatory framework of the Electricity Act. [Paras 26-34].

Electricity Act, 2003, Section 42(2) and 42(4) - Open Access - Cross-Subsidy Surcharge (CSS) and Additional Surcharge (AS) - Rationale - Held, CSS is compensatory for the loss of high-revenue consumers who exit the DISCOM fold, ensuring subsidised tariffs for vulnerable categories (agriculture/low-income). Since Railways is a "consumer" under Section 2(15) procuring power for its own end-use, it is legally bound to pay CSS and AS when availing open access. [Paras 51-59, 66, 71].

Statutory Interpretation - Legislative History - Proposed Amendments - Reliance on Draft Electricity (Amendment) Bills 2014 and 2025 - Held, the fact that the Parliament proposed specific amendments to exempt Railways from CSS indicates that such exemption does not exist under the current prevailing statute. A legislative proposal for exemption confirms that the privilege is not currently covered by the existing framework. [Paras 60-70].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Judgment of APTEL dated 12.02.2024 upheld – Respondents directed to compute outstanding CSS and AS amounts – Appellant granted opportunity to respond to calculations before payment.

Constitution of India, Article 226 - Judicial Review - Scope in Disciplinary Proceedings - High Court Division Bench set aside the dismissal of Respondent No. 1 by reappreciating evidence and holding it was a case of "no evidence" - Held, the power of judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. High Courts should not venture into reappreciation of evidence or substitute their own findings for those of the disciplinary authority unless the findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or suffer from patent error. The Division Bench transgressed these settled limits. [Paras 19-21].

Service Law - Departmental Enquiry - Standard of Proof - Preponderance of Probabilities - Respondent No. 1 accused of securing two simultaneous police appointments under different identities using forged documents - Division Bench set aside dismissal as Bihar witnesses were not examined - Held, technical rules of the Indian Evidence Act do not apply to departmental proceedings. The standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities. The available material, reinforced by subsequent forensic findings during the appeal, reasonably supported the charge of fraud. [Paras 4.5, 6.5, 12.3, 18].

Service Law - Misconduct - Fraud in Public Employment - Constable in Jharkhand Police found holding a second appointment in Bihar Police as "Santosh Kumar" through impersonation and forged credentials - Held, fraud at the threshold of entry into service strikes at the very root of public employment. A member of a disciplined force is expected to maintain the highest degree of integrity. The order of dismissal was a proportionate and justified administrative measure. [Paras 17, 22-24].

Constitution of India, Article 142 - Complete Justice - Quashing of Fraudulent Appointment - Forensic reports confirmed that "Ranjan Kumar" (Jharkhand Police) and "Santosh Kumar" (Bihar Police) were the same individual - While restoring the dismissal from Jharkhand Police, the Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 142 to quash the appointment order in Bihar Police to prevent the individual from benefiting from his deceitful conduct. [Para 27.1].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of the Division Bench set aside – Order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority restored – Appointment in Bihar Police quashed under Article 142 – DGPs of Bihar and Jharkhand directed to ensure initiation of criminal proceedings for fraud and forgery.